On Self-Refuting Statements and Physicalism
The most famous example of a self-refuting statement that I know is: "Nothing is absolutely true." Of course, the statement itself cannot then be true.
This is a common error from those who believe there is no truth.
On Wednesday night, I attended the Veritas Forum, which is a Christian-organized series of lectures, debates, and question/answer sessions that tackles life's hard questions in the search for truth -- on university and college campuses. It sounds like a wonderful idea, in my opinion.
However, while the speaker for this time around was good, he was not great, and I feel like he failed to provide very convincing arguments of what he believed -- even if I believe most of what he believes is true -- particularly in how he presented the opposing viewpoints.
His talk was about physicalism vs. dualism -- in particular, substantive dualism.
In brief, physicalism is the idea that all there really is is the physical universe and that everything immaterial is just an illusion. Whereas, dualism is a belief that the universe has material and immaterial parts of equal reality.
He stated that one of the statements of scientism -- one species of physicalism we could say -- is: "Only things that can be scientifically known are true." The speaker argued that this was a self-refuting statement, because it is not possible to scientifically test an immaterial statement. This is true.
However, while some people may word it (foolishly) this way, I don't think that this is exactly what a holder of scientism really means. I am not a physicalist, but I am a scientist and am surrounded by many who think like physicalists.
What I think is meant in scientism is subtly different: "The only valid test of truth is science. What cannot be tested by science may still be true, but it cannot be tested and may only be believed or assumed on faith -- including this statement."
Now, many physicalists try to pretend that they don't need that second sentence, but if they do not include it, they are in fact stupidly throwing around self-refuting statements as the speaker was arguing. Believing anything at all requires faith; they are one and the same.
Now I personally reject the first sentence also; I think there are a multitude of epistemologically valid methods -- such as the historical method, experience, authority. But if we were to allow the statements I wrote as fundamental axioms of scientism -- things accepted without proof -- then I don't think they are logically inconsistent.
Other beliefs of scientism are also taken as axioms:
"There is no immaterial world."
"There is no true free will. Everything is predetermined by the cause-and-effect relationships of the physical universe."
"The soul/mind and consciousness are simply illusions that helps our species survive natural selection."
All of these statements could be true, but they cannot be scientifically tested.
My problem with the speaker is that he assumed that all physicalists think these things can be tested. I don't think all physicalists are so illogical as to think that way -- though many certainly do. But holding as silly examples those people and then arguing against the whole worldview is attacking a "straw man". As a Christian, I hate it when people do the same to us by attacking the silly and illogical beliefs of some Christians and assuming the whole world view is flawed.
Honestly, I think scientism is a self-consistent world view -- but I don't think it is right.
Were I not a theist, I would be a nihilist, because I would hold to the tenets of scientism but would find zero meaning in life because of the utter determinism that world view holds. I would most likely kill myself, figuring that I was determined to anyway and it would not matter. Apparently, my genes would not be worth passing on.
I chose not to believe that, and I believe in a God. But it is a choice.
I think that as long as Christian apologeticists try to argue that Christianity is the only logically valid world view, their opponents will see through that. Both Christianity and physicalism require some level of faith, and both groups need to understand and admit that up front.
(For a summary of my views on epistemology, see here.)
This is a common error from those who believe there is no truth.
On Wednesday night, I attended the Veritas Forum, which is a Christian-organized series of lectures, debates, and question/answer sessions that tackles life's hard questions in the search for truth -- on university and college campuses. It sounds like a wonderful idea, in my opinion.
However, while the speaker for this time around was good, he was not great, and I feel like he failed to provide very convincing arguments of what he believed -- even if I believe most of what he believes is true -- particularly in how he presented the opposing viewpoints.
His talk was about physicalism vs. dualism -- in particular, substantive dualism.
In brief, physicalism is the idea that all there really is is the physical universe and that everything immaterial is just an illusion. Whereas, dualism is a belief that the universe has material and immaterial parts of equal reality.
He stated that one of the statements of scientism -- one species of physicalism we could say -- is: "Only things that can be scientifically known are true." The speaker argued that this was a self-refuting statement, because it is not possible to scientifically test an immaterial statement. This is true.
However, while some people may word it (foolishly) this way, I don't think that this is exactly what a holder of scientism really means. I am not a physicalist, but I am a scientist and am surrounded by many who think like physicalists.
What I think is meant in scientism is subtly different: "The only valid test of truth is science. What cannot be tested by science may still be true, but it cannot be tested and may only be believed or assumed on faith -- including this statement."
Now, many physicalists try to pretend that they don't need that second sentence, but if they do not include it, they are in fact stupidly throwing around self-refuting statements as the speaker was arguing. Believing anything at all requires faith; they are one and the same.
Now I personally reject the first sentence also; I think there are a multitude of epistemologically valid methods -- such as the historical method, experience, authority. But if we were to allow the statements I wrote as fundamental axioms of scientism -- things accepted without proof -- then I don't think they are logically inconsistent.
Other beliefs of scientism are also taken as axioms:
"There is no immaterial world."
"There is no true free will. Everything is predetermined by the cause-and-effect relationships of the physical universe."
"The soul/mind and consciousness are simply illusions that helps our species survive natural selection."
All of these statements could be true, but they cannot be scientifically tested.
My problem with the speaker is that he assumed that all physicalists think these things can be tested. I don't think all physicalists are so illogical as to think that way -- though many certainly do. But holding as silly examples those people and then arguing against the whole worldview is attacking a "straw man". As a Christian, I hate it when people do the same to us by attacking the silly and illogical beliefs of some Christians and assuming the whole world view is flawed.
Honestly, I think scientism is a self-consistent world view -- but I don't think it is right.
Were I not a theist, I would be a nihilist, because I would hold to the tenets of scientism but would find zero meaning in life because of the utter determinism that world view holds. I would most likely kill myself, figuring that I was determined to anyway and it would not matter. Apparently, my genes would not be worth passing on.
I chose not to believe that, and I believe in a God. But it is a choice.
I think that as long as Christian apologeticists try to argue that Christianity is the only logically valid world view, their opponents will see through that. Both Christianity and physicalism require some level of faith, and both groups need to understand and admit that up front.
(For a summary of my views on epistemology, see here.)